-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New battery option 70D, is 105D next?
- Thread starter vandacca
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battery 70d Model X
My point is that there is no reason why the first batch of production-ready cells can't come from Panasonic Japan, prior to the opening of the GigaFactory. It would make more sense (to me anyway) to have the first production-ready cells come from a mature manufacturing site. If that were the case, then its possible that Tesla already has their hands on such cells and have begun using them.
Sure, when the GigaFactory gets rolling, they'll be able to produce a lot more of them and the price will come down, but until then its business as usual.
No doubt. But to suggest that comments made about such future plans is evidence such cells are in the 70kwh pack today doesn't add up. Yet that's what folks (including the starting premise of this thread) are doing (note the title of this thread)...
vandacca said:
airj2012 said:
Bangor Bob said:
anon_source said:
Folks are quoting all sorts of things out of context, including Roadster announcements and Gigafactory future plans. Evidence of this is in the thread title... people are speculating that a 105kwh pack could be imminent because of newer cells (the 85 pack is full of cells, so it couldn't be simply more of the existing chemistry cells).
There's no evidence of this being the case.
Nubo
Test Mule
Seems entirely possible to me. Improvements to cathode and anode materials or electrolyte wouldn't necessarily require major changes to manufacturing lines. They might save the geometry changes for Gigafactory since existing factories are geared to make billions of 18650 cells.
trialcritic
Member
Do see this article from the MIT Technology Review
http://www.technologyreview.com/new...ectric-cars-may-arrive-sooner-than-you-think/
The true cost of lithium-ion batteries in electric cars is a secret closely held by manufacturers. And estimates of the cost vary widely, making it tough to determine just how much lower they must go before electric vehicles with long ranges can be affordable for most buyers. But a peer-reviewed study of more than 80 estimates reported between 2007 and 2014 determined that the costs of battery packs are “much lower” than widely assumed by energy-policy analysts.
The authors of the new study concluded that the battery packs used by market-leading EV manufacturers like Tesla and Nissan cost as little as $300 per kilowatt-hour of energy in 2014. That’s lower than the most optimistic published projections for 2015, and even below the average published projection for 2020. The authors found that batteries appear on track to reach $230 per kilowatt-hour by 2018.
If that’s true, it would push EVs across a meaningful threshold. Depending on the price of gas, the sticker price of an EV is expected to appeal to many more people if its battery costs between $125 and $300 per kilowatt-hour. Because the battery makes up perhaps a quarter to a half of the cost of the car, a substantially cheaper battery would make the vehicle itself significantly cheaper too. Alternatively, carmakers could maintain current EV prices but offer vehicles with much longer ranges.
http://www.technologyreview.com/new...ectric-cars-may-arrive-sooner-than-you-think/
The true cost of lithium-ion batteries in electric cars is a secret closely held by manufacturers. And estimates of the cost vary widely, making it tough to determine just how much lower they must go before electric vehicles with long ranges can be affordable for most buyers. But a peer-reviewed study of more than 80 estimates reported between 2007 and 2014 determined that the costs of battery packs are “much lower” than widely assumed by energy-policy analysts.
The authors of the new study concluded that the battery packs used by market-leading EV manufacturers like Tesla and Nissan cost as little as $300 per kilowatt-hour of energy in 2014. That’s lower than the most optimistic published projections for 2015, and even below the average published projection for 2020. The authors found that batteries appear on track to reach $230 per kilowatt-hour by 2018.
If that’s true, it would push EVs across a meaningful threshold. Depending on the price of gas, the sticker price of an EV is expected to appeal to many more people if its battery costs between $125 and $300 per kilowatt-hour. Because the battery makes up perhaps a quarter to a half of the cost of the car, a substantially cheaper battery would make the vehicle itself significantly cheaper too. Alternatively, carmakers could maintain current EV prices but offer vehicles with much longer ranges.
This could become an excellent money maker for Tesla in the future. Sell the newest battery tech to vehicle customers, where range and battery performance are top selling points.
Then recycle the "old" packs from customer vehicles and reuse the slightly dated cells/modules in large scale stationary storage applications where energy density is much less important.
By reclaiming the value of the "old" cells and modules, Tesla could lower the cost of upgrading to the latest battery tech for their vehicle customers, while maintaining a steady supply of cheap second hand batteries for stationary storage customers.
trialcritic
Member
Do see the talk by JB Straubel in SoCal energy summit. His notable comment,
"Tesla was not founded to make more electric cars, it was founded to drive a revolution in energy technology."
It is estimated that the 2017 Model S/X with 115 kWh battery is going weigh less and cost less than the 2012 Model S with 85 kWh battery. As the cars weigh less the 2017 model S/X will be more efficient than the 2012 because it will weigh less with the larger battery.
I may not be surprised if the electric battery work becomes their main focus and they give up the car manufacturing to another company. After all, car making is a well contested business and someone can catch up with them, but the batteries are needed and not available (volume, improvements with time) currently.
Some great stuff here, but this raises a few questions. We know that the S60 uses the NCR18650A at 3100mAh, but remember that the S85 uses the Panasonic NCR18650B rated for 3400mAh. So assuming that the V/i curves for the cells were completely flat, they're not but that's an ok approximation, we find that switching to NCR18650G for the S85 would result in a pack that ~90kWh not the 99.8kWh that comes from your comparison with the 3100mAh cells.
However, there are unconfirmed rumors of a Panasonic NCR18650C with a 4120mAh rated capacity at 4.35V(recharge) rather than 4.2V. If these cells are real then Tesla could create a pack on the order of ~105kW.
So I think that this really all comes down to whether the NCR18650C is a real cell or not. If it isn't then I see no reason for tesla to update the S85 for a measly ~5kWh capacity increase. However, If the 4120mAh supercell is a real thing I could definitely see something like an S105 in the near future.
As an aside. A 105kWh pack would allow for something like ~340 miles of range in the S105D configuration. This would put ~100 miles of range between the S105D and the S70D, which could be useful from a marketing perspective. So at this point I would say that an update to the capacity of the S85 capacity is perhaps slightly more likely than not, with a very large uncertainty around that assessment.
Edit: Also there's reason to think that Panasonic would be able to produce something like the NCR18650C in 2015. In 2009 Panasonic promised a 4000mAh cell to be produced in 2013 with a silicon anode that never really materialized. The NCR18650C could finally be the production of such a cell. This has the added benefit of explaining why the recharge voltage of the rumored NCR18650 is higher than 4.2 volts, as the silicon anode may have higher over-potentials than the graphite used in more standard chemistries.
Edit 2: There seems to be a good chance that I might be wrong here. It looks like there may be a discrepancy between what most people are using here to report battery capacity; some people are using the minimum cell capacity while others are using the average capacity. I look into it and see if I can correct my mistakes.
Edit 3:
The teardown from wk057 show the discharge curve for the batteries in the 85kWh and comes up with a 2.9mAh number meaning that it has to be the NCR18650A and not the NCR18650B.
This means that Bob's original thoughts are correct.
Last edited:
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
40 + 20 = 60
60 + 25 = 85
85 + 30 = 115
85 + 35 = 120
85 + 50 = 135
85 + 65 = 150
85 + 85 = 170
85 + 135 = 220
60 + 25 = 85
85 + 30 = 115
85 + 35 = 120
85 + 50 = 135
85 + 65 = 150
85 + 85 = 170
85 + 135 = 220
Drucifer
Active Member
Chevy has rolled out new chemistry on the Volt twice already, as has Nissan on the Leaf at least once. Probably not that big of a deal to implement.
I mentioned elsewhere, but I'd bet money that the 70D is just a pack that uses 14 of 16 modules used in an 85 pack, similar to how the 60 pack was configured with 14 modules with fewer cells. This would eliminate a part (the 60-type module) completely and streamline pack production (either has the front two oddball modules or it doesn't). Perhaps it uses modules that use cells that binned a hair below spec compared to the 85. But I doubt it is different cells.
As for my discharge curve, I think there is a flaw in my test setup that would cause a lower voltage read. I'm going to retest after I eliminate the potential error in my setup and expect a higher Ah number. (mentioned this in the other thread)
As for my discharge curve, I think there is a flaw in my test setup that would cause a lower voltage read. I'm going to retest after I eliminate the potential error in my setup and expect a higher Ah number. (mentioned this in the other thread)
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I'm going to make a wild guess that the 85 kWh battery will be the only battery in the Model X, at least initially.
Tesla ultimately deemed the 60 kWh battery to be insufficient to create the kind of experience they want to give to customers. Elon's comments were that 200 miles + 20% buffer, or 240 miles, was ideal. A 70 kWh battery in Model X could reasonably be predicted to yield similar range to the 60 kWh Model S, due to extra mass and taller profile. I don't think Tesla wants to sell anything less than a 240 miles EPA rated vehicle.
It's my guess that the 85 kWh battery is the only pack that will achieve 240+ rated EPA in the Model X.
Tesla ultimately deemed the 60 kWh battery to be insufficient to create the kind of experience they want to give to customers. Elon's comments were that 200 miles + 20% buffer, or 240 miles, was ideal. A 70 kWh battery in Model X could reasonably be predicted to yield similar range to the 60 kWh Model S, due to extra mass and taller profile. I don't think Tesla wants to sell anything less than a 240 miles EPA rated vehicle.
It's my guess that the 85 kWh battery is the only pack that will achieve 240+ rated EPA in the Model X.
Just a reminder that the Model X webpage was updated to say "Offered with multiple battery and performance options" (removing the 60 and 85 reference). Perhaps because they knew the 60 was going away and it made sense not to disclose that and hence the more generic battery options. So I still think we'll see a Model X 70 and Model X 85 at launch. And to quote Scotty, no bloody "A", "B", "C", or "D".
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
